Pre-deposit under excise law unwarranted where marketability of zinc dross raised a substantial merits issue.

The HC held that insistence on pre-deposit under Section 35F was unwarranted where the appeal raised a substantial question on whether zinc dross was an excisable and marketable commodity. In light of binding Supreme Court authority on marketability and excisability, the Tribunal was required to examine the dispute on merits rather than condition the appeal on deposit. The pre-deposit direction was therefore set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a case involving the question whether zinc dross was an excisable, marketable commodity.

Analysis: The dispute raised a substantial issue requiring consideration on merits, especially in light of binding Supreme Court decisions on marketability and excisability. In these circumstances, insistence on a pre-deposit was held to be unwarranted at that stage.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---